Now I understand.
Well, I like the {} syntax better than the #, but I'm not in a religious
mood.
Whatever.

Daniel

Andres Valloud <sqrmax at prodigy.net> wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> > The simple one, semantically equivalent to yours is -
> > 
> > allTrue
> >         ^self allSatisfy: [:each | each value]
> > 
> > The usage pattern is as before:
> > 
> > {[exp1].
> > [exp2].
> > [exp3]} allTrue
> 
> Eh?  {}'s?  Where did they come from?  Where did #, go?  I thought that
> was one of the good points, avoiding creating the collection explicitly
> and then just sending messages not to a collection, but to a
> condition... oh well, maybe it's just that conditions are a collection
> of block contexts.  So ok, let's make BooleanCondition a subclass of
> OrderedCollection.  Ouch, now #, doesn't work :(.
> 
> > The second, smarter one is a bit overly complex, but seems quite
> > convenient -
> > 
> > allTrue
> >         ^self allSatisfy: [:e | e isBoolean ifTrue: [e] ifFalse: [e value]]
> 
> I don't like the "isBoolean ifTrue: ifFalse:" part.  I just wanted to
> group blocks together without an #and: or #or: cascade and treat them as
> a single thing.
> 
> > So you only put in blocks things you need to calculate lazily, as in -
> > {exp1.
> > [exp2].
> > exp3.
> > [exp4]} allTrue
> > 
> > This is what I meant by not having the block in the example I gave
> > below, so I resist your correction! :-)
> 
> It was not a correction, it just wanted to make things homogeneous and
> simple.
> 
> > This allows you to say explicitly "This expression is expensive or
> > dangerous!", which is often worth saying. And it reduces clutter
> > when they aren't.
> 
> Do you think that you can do with
> 
> ([...], [...], [...]) allTrue
> 
> or do you think you'd like
> 
> {aBoolean.  [...].  [...]} allTrue
> 
> better?  Personally, I'd rather stick with ([...], [...], [...])
> allTrue.  I just like it because of the #, syntax.  But I'm still not
> sure about whether it would be better to have the BooleanCondition be a
> kind of Collection or not.
> 
> So I'm torn between syntax and implementation???... what am I thinking
> about???  <G>
> 
> Andres.